As I was walking recently, I asked myself “What would a 21st century intersectional mass movement look like?” and tried to imagine this reality.

What sounds would you hear? What sights would you see? What emotions would you feel? What would life be like while achieving success?

At the heart of this question is the search for the characteristics that compose a mass movement. What would it be like to experience an intersectional mass movement for social change?

What is a mass movement?

What is the difference between a “movement” and a “mass movement?”

In the U.S., the 1950s/60s/70s mass movements (e.g. American Indian Movement, civil rights, and Asian American Movement) continue to serve as inspiration for countless other movements (both large and small).

Right now we have a racial and gender justice movement, climate movement, education reform movement, and a host of other movements that endeavor to give more people a chance to succeed to their highest ability.

However, these movements have not morphed into “mass movements” that mobilize a vast number of people and shifted our worldviews.

Currently, those pushing for an intersectionality appear very close to helping create mass movements.

Connecting intersectionality to movements

Intersectionality comes from an understanding that identities, privilege, and oppression are intimately connected and cannot be segmented from each other.

For example as a white male, I have privileges that compound upon each other and equal more than my identities separately.

I cannot just “add up” my privilege, I must multiply. Oppression works in a similar way.

An LGBTQ identified individual with disabilities experiences oppression at the cross section of their identities, and NOT as an LGBTQ identified individual separately from their social disability.

A good example of the importance of intersectionality comes from Occupy..

Occupy emphasized class struggle as the priority above all else.

Rinku Sen notes (in her book “Stir it Up”), for rhetoric similar to Occupy’s, that “The implication here is that class war is universal, but race, gender, and sexual liberation are particular and are not appealing to all of humanity.”

Due to this focus, Occupy has often struggled with issues of member privilege and racial/gender/etc. justice and continues to express in many ways the white male privilege of many of its members.

An intersectional mass movement would explicitly look for change through a kaleidoscopic lens and would itself be composed of many different identities.

This intersectional movement would NOT draw on dominant narratives (e.g. “as American as apple pie,” “everyone has the same opportunity to succeed”, etc.) or just to appeal to a majority base.

There are many pieces to this movement and below are some important ones to consider for this 21st century intersectional movement.

“Yes, queer and trans* people without race and/or class privilege will be able to get married the same as other queers. But that doesn’t mean that we will have the same benefits. If two poor people with no healthcare marry each other, they don’t suddenly get healthcare. And a black queer couple can’t get a break on estate taxes for a property they can’t buy because the owner will only sell to white folks.”

Mia McKenzie illustrates how events that should be a “move forward,” have a vast disparity in impacts depending on one’s privilege.

As Mia McKenzie and others have pointed out, this divergence of justice is one of the biggest reasons we need an “inclusive and intersectional movement” (i.e. one that meets the needs of people of multiple identities and directly address the interconnection between different types of oppression).

The other major Supreme Court cases this week, to me are a clearly demonstration of what happens when we focus solely on single issues (e.g. marriage equality), instead of seeking out this more cross-issue movement with an analysis of privilege.

What this week’s decisions teach us about the dangers of single issues

In this child custody case the court decided in a 5-4 decision that the child, Baby Veronica, did not qualify under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) “because she is 1.2% (3/256) Cherokee” and thus not Native enough according to Justice Alito. Even though the Cherokee Nation considers her to be a member.

The most common description of the 5-4 decision was as the “gutting of the Voting Rights Act,” because it allowed states (mainly Southern) with a history of racial discrimination to change election laws without obtaining federal approval in advance.

But how would a more cross-issue or intersectional movement help us in our efforts?

For example, the issue of power and white privilege/culture showed up strongly in all of these cases (not to mention colonialism, patriarchy, etc.)

A robust movement that explicitly showed the connections of racial justice, workers’ rights, indigenous sovereignty issues in these cases under the banner of dismantling white privilege would have a much easier time convincing the media and the public of how prevalent these forms injustice remain.

When we break things up into small issues, they become easier to ignore and break down.

Even if the majority of folks wish to dismantle injustice (e.g. ending climate change, ableism), we lose a little of our strength when we spread out.

I had never consciously tied my organizing efforts to my values before, and once I did I could immediately tell the difference!

In a current environment where most nonprofits and community initiatives shy away from stating their deeply held values and just focus on their immediate aim, Rinku Sen’s call for campaigns infused with our beliefs, stands as a powerful counter.

So what’s a campaign centered on its values look like?

The nice thing about Rinku Sen is she not only has good ideas, but she also makes it really easy to show examples of her efforts in action!

One of Colorlines’ most prominent campaigns is “Drop the I-Word.” The campaign’s focus is to eliminate the use of the term “illegal” when applied to people (e.g. illegal immigrant) since “No human being is “illegal.’”

The Drop the I-Word campaign, alongside the work of other activists, has helped bring about a change in the Associated Press, USA Today, and others to stop the use of “illegal immigrant.” Despite the recent successes, the Drop the I-Word campaign has continued to push other media outlets, such as the New York Times, to follow suit.

While the short-term issue of the campaign is change how journalism, communities, and organizations talk about immigration and civil rights, the longer-term value of the campaign is to change our culture away from intolerance to one of respect and rights for all people.

This campaign’s impact will last far longer than a campaign aimed simply on getting people to not use the racial slur “illegal immigrant.” And that’s because this campaign works to change culture, not just a single word.

If we all worked to shift culture and actions, behaviors, and policies where might we be in making lasting change?

Other ways Rinku Sen shows us how to build strong, long-term movements

You might notice a lot of my writing will reference Rinku Sen’s ideas or the collection of organizing practices she coalesced. The reason I highlight Rinku is that I learned a lot about what it means to be a strategic changemaker from her.

So let’s look at other ways Rinku shows us how to be a 21st century organizer.

A. Center our leadership development and organizing of those most impacted – whether we are aiming for racial justice or gender justice, we must make sure to build capacity of those on the frontlines.

B. Build sustained campaigns – sometimes we have to go against the Alinsky advice for “short-term, winnable campaigns” and instead advocate for issues that will take lots of time and energy to succeed.

C. Increase our use of new research and media – while it can be easy to become frustrated by the mainstream media, we have a chance to build new research/media outlets (e.g. ARC and Colorlines) that showcase our organizing and values.

D. Frame campaigns on large-scale ideas/values – organizations must take a stand (even though most reach toward the center) and conduct political education of their members.

E. Support emerging social movements – building robust organizational capacity can clash with encouraging movements, thus organizations must always remain accountable to the movement.

As I wrote earlier, Stir It Up (which you should definitely check out!) was my first introduction to Rinku’s work; however, I’ve been making sure to keep updated on her incredible ideas through Rinku Sen’s writing on Colorlines (as you should too!). If you’re interested in building movements that last, then Rinku is a person to follow!

So now that you’ve heard about Rinku Sen’s work, make sure to go over and commit to “Dropping the I-Word.”